Reply 37720 of 40010, by spiroyster
- Rank
- Oldbie
Jed118 wrote on 2021-01-18, 18:59:chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-18, 16:25:Jed118 wrote on 2021-01-18, 16:01:I remember those being hit-or-miss. What's the dot pitch on that one?
Looking at the box it shows .20mm horizontal and .25mm diagonal dot pitch
AH yes, the good old clicking and zooming.
I had a 17 inch back in the day, there must have been something wrong with it because I don't recall it being very good, at least compared to my 21" DiamondScan and a 20" Samsung (I forget the model, this was 20 years ago) monitors from around the same time. A friend had a 15 inch Viewsonic and it also wasn't too impressive. The ones at the computer store I worked at were pretty crisp though. Weird.
I was the only one I knew with one to see in person, so granted there may have been quality issues, and certainly the non-flat versions didn't seem as good. When I got it, it was actually the cheaper of the 17" options in the shop I was at, and thought at first it was another example of me having to settle for second best unlike my mates and their trinitons. Moment I turned it on though, everybody in my circle of nerdy friends were jelious. I'm not sure if they made larger ones. Also 17" at that time felt quite sizeable in a world of 14/15 inch screens which seemed to be the standard at the home. Nice refresh rate at the largest resolution it could handle. 75Hz at 1280 x 1024 iirc?
I certainly rate the diamondscans too, better than trinitons imo. For 17", both were trumped by that Viewsonic though. I don't think the Viewsoninc was OEM either, certainly never came across that screen branded by anyone else. The specs are qute unique to it.... daum, I want one again now... no space 🙁.










